Heirs Of Land Buyer Lose Bid To Revive Challenge To Land Restoration After Unexplained 10-Year Delay: Chhattisgarh HC

The petitioners challenged orders refusing to restore their revision against the Collector’s 1995 order directing restoration of disputed land under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

Their revision was dismissed for non-prosecution on 23 September 1998.

They attributed their absence to their counsel’s failure to appear or inform them of the hearing dates, and later sought restoration under Section 35(3) of the Code.

The Additional Commissioner rejected the restoration application in 2016, and the Board of Revenue dismissed their revision in 2023.

The petitioners then sought supervisory relief under Article 227.

The High Court noted that the petitioners had approached the State Government in 2008 and pursued further proceedings thereafter, but had not satisfactorily explained the period of inaction following the 1998 dismissal.

Section 35(3) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code permits a party against whom an order has been passed in its absence to seek its setting aside on the ground of sufficient cause for non-appearance, subject to the provision’s requirements.

In considering restoration, the authority may assess the litigant’s overall conduct, including whether the absence was bona fide and whether the litigant acted diligently after dismissal.

Applying Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), 2024 (12) SCC 336, the Court held that a liberal approach cannot substitute for sufficient cause; negligence, inaction, and lack of due diligence are relevant to discretionary relief.

Smt. Preetam Kaur v. Nagar Palika Parishad, Pithaura was considered, but its application depended on the facts of this case.

The alleged failure of counsel could explain the petitioners’ absence when the revision was dismissed in 1998, but did not explain why they failed to seek restoration for approximately a decade.

Their later approaches to the State Government and the courts, including the liberty granted to seek restoration, did not themselves excuse that earlier period of inaction.

The authorities were entitled to consider the petitioners’ repeated absences and overall conduct; the unserved notices and need to bring a deceased non-applicant’s legal representatives on record did not establish sufficient cause for the petitioners’ absence or explain the subsequent delay.

The Court found no perversity, jurisdictional error, or material illegality warranting interference under Article 227.

The writ petition was dismissed.